Clean-burning biofuels can give us true independence

Updated 7:07 pm, Tuesday, July 2, 2013

This week, we celebrate Independence Day. Yet, our country still depends on oil imported from volatile regions.

Trusting unreliable foreign sources brings high pump prices and jeopardizes national security. Fortunately, our armed forces understand the importance of reliable fuel sources. The Navy is launching its Great Green Fleet, powered by 50-50 mixtures of biofuel and petroleum-based fuel.

We can provide our motorists and military with stable, domestically produced fuel. Since 2011, American-made ethanol has contributed more to the U.S. fuel supply than gasoline refined from oil imports from OPEC. Oil terminals in Houston blend 10 percent ethanol for sale in the Houston gas market. From 2005 through 2012, dependence on imported petroleum products declined from 60 to 41 percent.

So why do politicians and pundits target the fuel that saved motorists an average of $1.09 per gallon in 2011 and increases independence from foreign countries? Because of myths about ethanol.

1Myth No. 1: Biofuels are a boondoggle.

Ethanol's major tax credit expired in 2011 and the Renewable Fuel Standard, the federal policy encouraging the use of clean-burning biofuels, doesn't cost taxpayers a dime in increased spending or reduced revenues. Yet, Big Oil has enjoyed more than a century of subsidies and tax windfalls, which continue at almost $5 billion per year.

The fuel standard offers credits for years refiners and blenders use more biofuels than the standard requires. Big Oil claims that trading these credits raised the price of gasoline. But credits are traded among oil companies; they don't raise consumer prices. Instead, industry bids up the price of these credits to create an attack line against the standard.

1Myth No. 3: Ethanol production distorts land use patterns and damages the environment.

Ethanol is non-toxic, biodegradable and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 48 to 59 percent - equal to taking 5.2 million cars off the road. Unfortunately, some policymakers ignore biofuels' benefits because of the "indirect land-use change" theory. According to this unsubstantiated argument, if an acre of corn in Iowa is used for ethanol production, then an acre elsewhere must be converted into farmland. This theory overlooks American agriculture's productivity: Since 1980, farmers have been able to produce twice as much corn on only about 3 percent more acres, allowing America to feed and fuel the world. Meanwhile, petroleum production requires exploiting nonconventional oil sources such as tar sands, posing real environmental hazards.

1Myth No. 4: Ethanol blends are bad for automobile engines.

If ethanol is bad for cars, then why do racecars, which demand high-performance and zero errors, use it? Testing and research have established that fuel standard-encouraged 15 percent blends of ethanol with gasoline (E15) don't damage most auto engines. The EPA approved E15 for cars, light-duty trucks and SUVs built in 2001 or later - more than 62 percent of the vehicles on the road. In approving E15, the EPA subjected the fuel to more than 6.5 million miles of testing - or 12 round trips to the moon - making it the most tested motor fuel ever.

1Myth No. 5: Advanced biofuels are a fantasy.

The fuel standard supports developing advanced biofuels by gradually increasing requirements for non-grain ethanol. While ethanol producers primarily use grain, new technologies allow the use of corn stalks, wheat straw and paper wastes for fuel. These advanced biofuels promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 110 percent compared to gasoline. About 30 of these ethanol plants are being designed or built. To develop the next generation of biofuels, the nation must sustain the existing ethanol industry. Today's skilled workforce, private investment and infrastructure - from companies to fuel pumps - are essential for commercializing new technologies.